Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Politically incorrect observations

Posted on: March 26, 2012 - 7:37pm

NoMoreCrazyPeople

Posts: 969

Joined: 2009-10-14

Offline

Politically incorrect observations

I was having a converstion with my labourer in which we touch on some "politically incorrect" observations, and by that I mean any observation that generalizes a certain race, or group, or nationality... Whether some would copnsider it a good thing or not, it still seems to be politically incoorect, but not quite racist. I'll keep it short, list only 2 examples, and open it up to discussion, whether you agree with my observations or not I would like to hear what you think. And if you do agree with my observations, please describe your best explanation/theory for why it is so.

1)-On my way to Austrailia to go on my year long hippie style "find myself" backpacking trip I stopped off in Japan for 5 hours. Just coming out of the plane and walking down the seemingly infinite hallways leading me around one thing became so obvious it was...well just that, blatantly obvious. With a fairly average/slightly above average height of about 6ft, I towered over the general mass of Japanese folk. Maybe 1 guy out of the many hundreds walking down those hallways was anyhwhere near my height, I felt like a damb giant. The urinals in the airport are about 12" off the ground, so low I had to bend down significantly to use them. Agree? Why?

2)-Watching the olypics, it seems quite evident that black people completely and utterly dominate short races. I almost feel bad for the fastest dude in germany, or holland or wherever who by local default makes the cut, and crosses the finish line so many metres behind the pack it is embarresing. For the most part, black people seem to dominate any sport they choose to train in, or more specifically they seem to simply be able to run faster and jump higher naturally without trainig. From my observations, I would bet a pretty penny if you race 100 12 year old black kids against 100 12 year old white kids 1 by 1, their would be a clearsided win overall. Agree? Why?

First, I will set myself apart from the vast majority of my fellow forum members in stating that I do believe that there exists, clearly identifiable phenotypes among the human race. "Race" is not a term that I choose as it is too frequently used as another word for species. I will dispense with that term to avoid confusion.

I do believe that given the nature of evolution that differentiation among humans was a result. Yes, different human phenotypes can reproduce with each other, just as tigers and lions can breed and produce offspring that are a blending of attributes but that in no way negates the preexisting categories of "lion" and "tigers".

I do not believe that evolution among humans in any way moves toward anything that could be described as an equal or "fair" distribution of attributes and characteristics. That's all I will say for now.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

First, I will set myself apart from the vast majority of my fellow forum members in stating that I do believe that there exists, clearly identifiable phenotypes among the human race. "Race" is not a term that I choose as it is too frequently used as another word for species. I will dispense with that term to avoid confusion.

I do believe that given the nature of evolution that differentiation among humans was a result. Yes, different human phenotypes can reproduce with each other, just as tigers and lions can breed and produce offspring that are a blending of attributes but that in no way negates the preexisting categories of "lion" and "tigers".

I do not believe that evolution among humans in any way moves toward anything that could be described as an equal or "fair" distribution of attributes and characteristics. That's all I will say for now.

I agree with you, but I think it is obvious to all that people in different parts of world, with different ways of life will develope diffrent "this and that" over time. But that a general and obvious explanation, I'm asking specifically, what do you think led to these qualities. Why is it that black people dominate races, no white man on this planet can compete with the top black runners. Why, what events led to this speed advantage?

I think my middle name is politically incorrect. My family hales from the south. When I was a kid my biological grandfather came from Tennessee to stay with us for a while for a big construction job. He brought his crew with him. One of his best guys was named J.J. but he called him "nigger". And J.J. called him "Pappy". No bullshit. And this was only 30 yrs ago. Other than that he treated him very well, always made sure he had money and a place to stay. And J.J. loved him like a father. I'm only telling you this to show how much I had to adjust to society to be P.C.

1. nothing incorrect. just a stranger in a strange land. Those short guys do have some advantages of their own. I'm 6'2" and my best friend is 5'5". We make the ultimate working team. He doesn't have the back problems I do tho.

2. This will seem straight up racist to most. Have you ever noticed the difference in black people from different places. The African is more streamlined than his American counterpart. This is because of slave selection and subsequent selective breeding by slave owners for better workers. Honestly, how many 6'6"-290 lb linebacker types do you see walking around Africa?

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia

First, I will set myself apart from the vast majority of my fellow forum members in stating that I do believe that there exists, clearly identifiable phenotypes among the human race. "Race" is not a term that I choose as it is too frequently used as another word for species. I will dispense with that term to avoid confusion.

I'm with ya in a way, so which word would you use to articulate the difference between groups of humans seperated over many millenia and miles which developed very different physical traits?

I'm with ya in a way, so which word would you use to articulate the difference between groups of humans seperated over many millenia and miles which developed very different physical traits?

I'm not sure which term specifically defines the concept that I am espousing. For the time being I am leaning toward phenotype or even genotype. Again, I will not use the term "race" due to it's ambiguous usage. There are many more scientifically literate forum members here who are more familiar with the terms, but I doubt that they will allow themselves to come to the same conclusions as myself.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

Why is it that black people dominate races, no white man on this planet can compete with the top black runners. Why, what events led to this speed advantage?

Hard to say. There is quite a spectrum of physical traits among the indigenous Africans. There are those who like the Tutsi are characteristically very tall ( eg, Manute Bol ) and other types who are consistently of small staure. They are all "gifted" in diverse ways.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

I don't agree with either of those things. I used to live in Japan. I'm about 175 which is pretty average height and it didn't seem to me that I was towering over anyone. The average height for men in Japan is about 170 which is within 5cm more or less of the average height in most places in the world.

Black people don't dominate sports because most black people aren't good at sports. Take Kenyans for example who have won dozens of Olympic medals. An author named John Bale wrote a book titled "Kenyan Running." He found that almost all of the people from Kenya who won medals were from a small region there called the Rift Valley. Most of the country has no medals, so it's not all black people or even all Kenyans.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

This will seem straight up racist to most. Have you ever noticed the difference in black people from different places. The African is more streamlined than his American counterpart. This is because of slave selection and subsequent selective breeding by slave owners for better workers. Honestly, how many 6'6"-290 lb linebacker types do you see walking around Africa?

Well, in the US there are precious few blacks who are truly black. Almost all possess ample amounts of European ancestry. I'm sure you know why.

In South Africa there are three "racial" categories that are acknowledged there. Whites, Blacks ( those who have no European ancestry ) and Coloreds ( those who are of mixed ancestry like our current President ).

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

I don't agree with either of those things. I used to live in Japan. I'm about 175 which is pretty average height and it didn't seem to me that I was towering over anyone. The average height for men in Japan is about 170 which is within 5cm more or less of the average height in most places in the world.

I live in a city that is highly populated by Tongans ( South Pacific Islanders ) and I guarantee that by and "large" categorically speaking, they do not fit within your supposed stereotype.

Gauche wrote:

Black people don't dominate sports because most black people aren't good at sports.

That's hilarious ! I mean really, do you even own a TV ?

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

This will seem straight up racist to most. Have you ever noticed the difference in black people from different places. The African is more streamlined than his American counterpart. This is because of slave selection and subsequent selective breeding by slave owners for better workers. Honestly, how many 6'6"-290 lb linebacker types do you see walking around Africa?

Well, in the US there are precious few blacks who are truly black. Almost all possess ample amounts of European ancestry. I'm sure you know why.

In South Africa there are three "racial" categories that are acknowledged there. Whites, Blacks ( those who have no European ancestry ) and Coloreds ( those who are of mixed ancestry like our current President ).

There is also the viewpoint of IQ. being a factor. I wasn't going to expound on the subject but Im sure others have already put a big "R" for racist in front of my name. It is not rare thought that the higher the I.Q. of a species or race the less need for physical prominence. That is why the imaginative vision of what higher intelligent beings or aliens would likely have larger brains and smaller bodies. The I.Q difference between races is of course highly controversial and debatable. This wiki breakdown of the subject includes Asians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia

I scanned a review of his book on Amazon.com and one of the reviewers stated that his book struck a blow against the concept of "biological determinism". That alone should alert the reader that his book is likely tailored to those readers who prefer the approach of "race is a social construct". Nature is indifferent and biological determinism should not be shunned simply because one finds that process distasteful.

Also, if simply living in this Rift Valley is the common denominator for running excellence then perhaps someone should conduct an experiment. Start by raising a group of young children with widely diverse genetic phenotypes / races and see if these other children can produce the same results.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

I scanned a review of his book on Amazon.com and one of the reviewers stated that his book struck a blow against the concept of "biological determinism". That alone should alert the reader that his book is likely tailored to those readers who prefer the approach of "race is a social construct". Nature is indifferent and biological determinism should not be shunned simply because one finds that process distasteful.

Also, if simply living in this Rift Valley is the common denominator for running excellence then perhaps someone should conduct an experiment. Perhaps raising a group of young children with widely diverse genetic phenotypes / races and see if these other children can produce the same results.

I didn't claim they are good runners because they live there. The point was that it doesn't show a regional pattern of advantage, much less a racial pattern, but instead a scattering of different performances in different small populations.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

I didn't claim they are good runners because they live there. The point was that it doesn't show a regional pattern of advantage, much less a racial pattern, but instead a scattering of different performances in different small populations.

He proved that variations exist within categories of phenotype ? Was that something that was previously unknown ? Speaking of variations, I have brown eyes and am 6' tall, my brother has hazel eyes and is 2" taller, does that mean that we don't share the same genetic background ?

[edit: I'm doing some casual reading and I'm beginning to think that term genotype might be a more accurate description. ]

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

He proved that variations exist within categories of phenotype ? Was that something that was previously unknown ? Speaking of variations, I have brown eyes and am 6' tall, my brother has hazel eyes and is 2" taller, does that mean that we don't share the same genetic background ?

I don't think that whether people have a similar genetic background is really at issue. People in the same country obviously do, but it wouldn't make much sense to say blacks are good at running based on the fact that a few small groups in one area won lots of Olympic medals when people in neighboring countries and even neighboring towns don't. That doesn't reveal anything about the athletic ability of all blacks or even all Kenyans.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

I don't think that whether people have a similar genetic background is really at issue. People in the same country obviously do, but it wouldn't make much sense to say blacks are good at running based on the fact that a few small groups in one area won lots of Olympic medals when people in neighboring countries and even neighboring towns don't. That doesn't reveal anything about the athletic ability of all blacks or even all Kenyans.

Athletic ability, or having a genius IQ are individual traits that vary from person to person, they do not define genotypes which are ( to my understanding ) collective traits that unify classification. Black people are still black people whether or not small groups ( or large groups ) display individual traits such as athleticism.

Medically speaking African males as a whole possess higher levels of testosterone than Caucasian males and coincidentally African males also have higher rates of prostate cancer.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

Athletic ability, or having a genius IQ are individual traits that vary from person to person, they do not define genotypes which are ( to my understanding ) collective traits that unify classification. Black people are still black people whether or not small groups ( or large groups ) display individual traits such as athleticism.

Medically speaking African males as a whole possess higher levels of testosterone than Caucasian males and coincidentally African males also have higher rates of prostate cancer.

You shouldn't be surprised that most blacks are not good at sports if individual traits vary from person to person. If you don't agree with the scientific consensus view that biologically speaking, with the current biological definition of race, it does not exist then you should probably investigate the matter further. It's been shown that when people have no emotional attachment to their viewpoint they tend to move in the direction of the consensus as they become more educated about the subject.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

Africa have a higher percentage of fast twitch muscle mass which gives them greater power but less endurance. Some north africans are the reverse. Europeans fall somewhere in between. The fast twitch muscle thing is proven physiology.

Japanese are shorter than me too and I find Tokyo pretty funny in that regard. You feel like a titan over there. The wee ladies are too cute for words, however.

I think there are generalisations about race that are fair enough. I cannot dance to save my life and pack standard tackle. It's heartbreaking stuff.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

It's been shown that when people have no emotional attachment to their viewpoint they tend to move in the direction of the consensus as they become more educated about the subject.

Yes, forensic anthropologists are an emotional lot aren't they ?

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

I was having a converstion with my labourer in which we touch on some "politically incorrect" observations, and by that I mean any observation that generalizes a certain race, or group, or nationality... Whether some would copnsider it a good thing or not, it still seems to be politically incoorect, but not quite racist. I'll keep it short, list only 2 examples, and open it up to discussion, whether you agree with my observations or not I would like to hear what you think. And if you do agree with my observations, please describe your best explanation/theory for why it is so.

1)-On my way to Austrailia to go on my year long hippie style "find myself" backpacking trip I stopped off in Japan for 5 hours. Just coming out of the plane and walking down the seemingly infinite hallways leading me around one thing became so obvious it was...well just that, blatantly obvious. With a fairly average/slightly above average height of about 6ft, I towered over the general mass of Japanese folk. Maybe 1 guy out of the many hundreds walking down those hallways was anyhwhere near my height, I felt like a damb giant. The urinals in the airport are about 12" off the ground, so low I had to bend down significantly to use them. Agree? Why?

2)-Watching the olypics, it seems quite evident that black people completely and utterly dominate short races. I almost feel bad for the fastest dude in germany, or holland or wherever who by local default makes the cut, and crosses the finish line so many metres behind the pack it is embarresing. For the most part, black people seem to dominate any sport they choose to train in, or more specifically they seem to simply be able to run faster and jump higher naturally without trainig. From my observations, I would bet a pretty penny if you race 100 12 year old black kids against 100 12 year old white kids 1 by 1, their would be a clearsided win overall. Agree? Why?

1 - I was in China and Japan previously. I know what you are talking about with the short/tall thing, I'm 6'3. The beds in China were so fucking small. I could lay down with my knees bent and feet touching the ground. The same thing with the toilets and chairs, etc.

I don't find this politically incorrect though. It's just the way things are in different countries.

2 - I don't find black people to be the best at every thing when it comes to sports. Yeah, there are a lot of them in sports but think about stuff like basketball. Inner city kids do nothing but play basketball and blacks dominate by numbers. During the 80's and 90's there were programs in some of the worst cities to keep kids off the drugs and away from the gangs. It was called like "midnight basketball" or something. 100% blacks. It ran in LA, Detroit, NY to name a few.

I also recall a heavy favor for blacks to box during the early 40's. They were grabbing kids off the streets and teaching them to box, so the boxing leagues were saturated with young black kids.

I had a conversation with my wife about the Kenyan's who seem to dominate the sport of marathons. The reason being is their long history of training and evolution of their tribes. It was natural to have people from this area who could run really long distances.

It's been shown that when people have no emotional attachment to their viewpoint they tend to move in the direction of the consensus as they become more educated about the subject.

Yes, forensic anthropologists are an emotional lot aren't they ?

That's a good point. While the majority of anthropologists have abandoned the concept of race, forensic anthropologists who identify skeletal remains seem to be more in favor of it. Because I'm not an anthropologist I don't know why that is but from what I've read the problem is an apparent disconnect between validity and utility. The moderate view of forensic anthropologists seems to be that while it's not the most precise way to describe human variation, it is accurate enough and much more simple than addressing such a complex phenomenon without racial classification even if you acknowledge the impossibility of assigning all individuals to discrete racial categories.

If the consensus across a broad spectrum of disciplines is that race is not a valid concept why reply that you can find at least one discipline where experts disagree? As a lay person you'd probably want to go with the consensus view not select a single field that deviates from it and may include some nuance to the position that doesn't affect your non expert opinion. What do you see as the difference between that and cherry picking?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

Stereotypes often have a basis in reality. Over time the reality may change, but the stereotype still exists in memory.

You seem to value your height. This preference may be hereditary and through natural selection this trait has become more dominant in your group. There are many factors related to these preferences, some environmental, others more deeply psychological; most of which we do not yet fully understand. Either way, the selection process seems to indicate to me that any particular current state of many biological traits reflects an evolutionary trend which is only more or less favorable based on the subjective preference of individuals who share a common region.

Migration between regions and cultural diversity directly affects this perception. A few centuries from now (if the singularity doesn't occur), a paradigm shift between cultures could reverse known perceptions and the selection process - resulting in taller Asians, shorter Westerners and really fast Canadians.

In regards to political correctness.. I live in Florida at the moment, and a lot of people play Golf down here. If I ask my doctor where he plays Golf, it might open up some good conversation. If I ask him his thoughts on government taxation (consider the stereotype that he is upper middle class), the mood in the room might get a little dark from that point forward.

So basically what I'm saying is don't tell the Asian man he's short, because he might take offense and respond with the wrath of a deadly ninja. Don't tell the African American the only reason he's fast is because of his skin color, because he might take offense and respond with the violence of an armed gangster.

If the consensus across a broad spectrum of disciplines is that race is not a valid concept why reply that you can find at least one discipline where experts disagree? As a lay person you'd probably want to go with the consensus view not select a single field that deviates from it and may include some nuance to the position that doesn't affect your non expert opinion. What do you see as the difference between that and cherry picking?

If consensus is the decisive factor then we atheists might as well give up our fight against religion right now, because no matter how much we struggle to present evidence to support our view we ...as atheists... certainly don't represent the majority opinion, either.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

The majority of people believing in gods doesn't reflect a scientific consensus and it's probably not even a scientific question so I don't think those things are comparable.

As a lay person attempting to approach the matter dispassionately I have to consider what reason I have to reject a much broader scientific consensus. The fact the concept of race has utility in the field of forensics doesn't change that for me any more than the fact of there being obvious heath benefits associated with meditation would make me believe it aligns your chakras, directs your chi and makes you one with the universe because a concept isn't necessarily validated by utility.

Beyond that I don't think the majority will always be religious anyway. Polling data in industrialized nations with low birth rates show clear trends towards being less religious and people who claim not to believe in gods are already probably the majority some countries. http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf

Even in the US where lack of religious belief is stigmatized and a large majority claim to be Christians, polling data shows that most of the younger ones at least don't pray, go to church, read the bible or think faith is important. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-04-27-1Amillfaith27_ST_N.htm And many of the people who do claim to attend church regularly are actually lying. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101201124353.htm

If you want to "fight against religion" then you should work to decrease things that correlate with high levels of religiosity like economic and gender inequality and to institute things that correlate with high levels of organic atheism like public healthcare.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

The majority of people believing in gods doesn't reflect a scientific consensus and it's probably not even a scientific question so I don't think those things are comparable.

Yet Christians still attempt to infuse God into their own scientific interpretations of natural processes. The "fine tuning" arguments are an example. Science can be hijacked by anyone, apparently.

Gauche wrote:

As a lay person attempting to approach the matter dispassionately I have to consider what reason I have to reject a much broader scientific consensus.

Do you have any non-scientific objections to the concept that is inaccurately referred to as "race" ? If so, why ?

Gauche wrote:

The fact the concept of race has utility in the field of forensics doesn't change that for me any more than the fact of there being obvious heath benefits associated with meditation would make me believe it aligns your chakras, directs your chi and makes you one with the universe because a concept isn't necessarily validated by utility.

If the concept of race / genotypes possessed no real specific scientific validity then why would they continue using it ? They aren't employing these categories simply because they can't think of something better to use. Despite your comparison there is no esoteric / mystical component to such scientific classifications. Genotype isn't Voo Doo.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

So basically what I'm saying is don't tell the Asian man he's short, because he might take offense and respond with the wrath of a deadly ninja. Don't tell the African American the only reason he's fast is because of his skin color, because he might take offense and respond with the violence of an armed gangster.

white man, I wonder? There must be some insulting stereotype white middle class males can feel aggrieved about. I've just been making do with guilt for 30 years and I'd love to feel indignant for a change.

Watching Mad Men hasn't made me feel any better. White people get a real thrashing on that show. Given I grew up in that era I find it impossible to believe things were so exaggeratedly negative.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Yet Christians still attempt to infuse God into their own scientific interpretations of natural processes. The "fine tuning" arguments are an example. Science can be hijacked by anyone, apparently.

Even if that's true I'm talking about scientific consensus not majority opinion the two are formed very differently.

Quote:

Do you have any non-scientific objections to the concept that is inaccurately referred to as "race" ? If so, why ?

I'm opposed to racism of course but that doesn't make me opposed to the concept of race in general. I've explained why I don't believe it. I have no reason to doubt the scientific consensus. What reason do you have to believe people who identify skeletal remains are in a unique position above all other sciences to validate the concept of race as you understand it?

Quote:

If the concept of race / genotypes possessed no real specific scientific validity then why would they continue using it ? They aren't employing these categories simply because they can't think of something better to use. Despite your comparison there is no esoteric / mystical component to such scientific classifications. Genotype isn't Voo Doo.

I addressed that already briefly in post 23 and again in the what you quoted, probably because of utility, but as we're not forensic anthropologists why should we even speculate?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

So basically what I'm saying is don't tell the Asian man he's short, because he might take offense and respond with the wrath of a deadly ninja. Don't tell the African American the only reason he's fast is because of his skin color, because he might take offense and respond with the violence of an armed gangster.

white man, I wonder? There must be some insulting stereotype white middle class males can feel aggrieved about. I've just been making do with guilt for 30 years and I'd love to feel indignant for a change.

Watching Mad Men hasn't made me feel any better. White people get a real thrashing on that show. Given I grew up in that era I find it impossible to believe things were so exaggeratedly negative.

I've stated that my opinion is that all humans are indeed a single speciesso it should therefore be no surprise that there exist genetic commonality, but that there is nevertheless a pronounced diversification within our species that remains within various genotypes. For example, is it an accident that no matter how many generations of indigenous Meso-Americans who reproduce within their respective genotype that they will never produce an offspring who is of a completely distinct and different genotype ?

IOW, what is the statistical probability that no matter how many reproductive generations pass that parents of pure Asian descent will produce a child that is born with blond hair and blue eyes ?

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

I've stated that my opinion is that all humans are indeed a single speciesso it should therefore be no surprise that there exist genetic commonality, but that there is nevertheless a pronounced diversification within our species that remains within various genotypes. For example, is it an accident that no matter how many generations of indigenous Meso-Americans who reproduce within their respective genotype that they will never produce an offspring who is of a completely distinct and different genotype ?

IOW, what is the statistical probability that no matter how many reproductive generations pass that parents of pure Asian descent will produce a child that is born with blond hair and blue eyes ?

Afghanistan is in Central Asia and there are people with blue eyes there now. It's irrelevant of course because I'm talking about how you form a lay opinion about something not the minutiae of taxonomy. Have you ever hear the expression "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing?"

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

Afghanistan is in Central Asia and there are people with blue eyes there now. It's irrelevant of course because I'm talking about how you form a lay opinion about something not the minutiae of taxonomy. Have you ever hear the expression "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing?"

Yes, of course. I'm aware that the science behind this topic is detailed and complex. Nevertheless the Afghans who have the light colored eyes are still reproducing characteristics that are consistent for their genotype. They have not made a genetic leap outside of their normal traits and the fact that they are located within Asia is irrelevant as your genetic code is something that you take with you no matter where you live.

A Chinese person who moves to Wisconsin is still genetically a Chines person and they will still pass on the those characteristics.

Besides, light colored eyes are naturally occurring within Semitic races as well. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has blue eyes and so does Vladimir Putin, that doesn't mean they share a genotype. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had extremely dark skin and so does Muay Thai boxer Buakaw Por Pramuk yet they too represent distinctly different and divergent genetic genotypes.

And beside, you ignored my example as to whether parents within a specific genotype will invariably continue to reproduce offspring who fall into that same genotype. Will parents of pure Far Eastern Asian ancestry ever reproduce a child who is genetically an indigenous African phenotype or a child of Nordic phenotype ? What are the chances ?

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

I did answer your question and now you're asking me a different question and I'll answer that too. You're asking me if people who are genetically East Asian will have morphological features, observable characteristics similar to people in Sub Saharan Africa and they do they're called Papuans and Aboriginal Australians, the latter also sometimes have blonde hair.

When people try to become instant experts and go against scientific consensus they should ask themselves whether it's really about being right or if it's just about their belief. You don't have to justify your belief to me or defend it because I don't care. If you think you've cracked the case then I'm not the one you should be arguing with anyway because admittedly I'm not an expert. Take it to an anthropology forum. My question is why is it that what you're trying to explain to me right now didn't sway the majority of scientists in the world?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

1)-On my way to Austrailia to go on my year long hippie style "find myself" backpacking trip I stopped off in Japan for 5 hours. Just coming out of the plane and walking down the seemingly infinite hallways leading me around one thing became so obvious it was...well just that, blatantly obvious. With a fairly average/slightly above average height of about 6ft, I towered over the general mass of Japanese folk. Maybe 1 guy out of the many hundreds walking down those hallways was anyhwhere near my height, I felt like a damb giant. The urinals in the airport are about 12" off the ground, so low I had to bend down significantly to use them. Agree? Why?

My wikipedian wanderings somehow took me on a page on evolution of juvenile traits, which is a part of what makes the visual difference between us and Neanderthals. Looks like we're programmed to see juvenile traits as attractive, probably a protective instinct to the young or something. And mongoloid races have these traits progressed more than any other race. They retain more juvenile traits than whites, blacks, anyone. Which involves smoother skin and lesser height, maybe even the epicanthic fold, (narrow eyes) which I originally thought was an evolution to protect the eyesight in dusty storms of Gobi. It's true, local Koreans from a car factory were first surprised that their best workers, middle-aged white men looked all gray and wrinkled like Koreans look when they're just above the grave. If evolution blesses us, in a half million years we'll be all looking like right out of manga*, big eyes, smooth skin, small and thin.*) or Rosswell

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

2)-Watching the olypics, it seems quite evident that black people completely and utterly dominate short races. I almost feel bad for the fastest dude in germany, or holland or wherever who by local default makes the cut, and crosses the finish line so many metres behind the pack it is embarresing. For the most part, black people seem to dominate any sport they choose to train in, or more specifically they seem to simply be able to run faster and jump higher naturally without trainig. From my observations, I would bet a pretty penny if you race 100 12 year old black kids against 100 12 year old white kids 1 by 1, their would be a clearsided win overall. Agree? Why?

Not that I ever spoke to a black person or seen more than 2 together so I can't really compare. But here again auntie Wikipedia comes to rescue. The evolution of (some) juvenile traits that we see in the white and asian races doesn't only flatten the skull, it also takes away muscle mass, height, makes more delicate ligaments and generally makes men and women more alike. And women are about 10% less strong than men. The black races probably have an older bodily design that didn't change so much since they had to outrun sabretooth cats.

OK, to not sound racist (which is probably subconscious in an almost completely white state) genetics is quite fair to us. All visible racial differences occupy a tiny amount of genetic information. If you want to preserve the bulk of genetic diversity, any race has it, regardless of how the people look like.

I did answer your question and now you're asking me a different question and I'll answer that too. You're asking me if people who are genetically East Asian will have morphological features, observable characteristics similar to people in Sub Saharan Africa and they do they're called Papuans and Aboriginal Australians, the latter also sometimes have blonde hair.

The Papuans are originally from Africa. Yet because of their habit of migrating and interbreeding with other "races" today they represent a blending of many genotypes. They could be described as a human "mongrel".

Gauche wrote:

When people try to become instant experts...

I claimed no such distinction.

Gauche wrote:

...and go against scientific consensus they should ask themselves whether it's really about being right or if it's just about their belief.

That is a double-edged sword. Societal pressures and the desire to avoid being accused of racism surely affect those within the academic world as well. Accusation of racism today have the same impact as being accused of being a communist in the 1950's. Having a PhD offers no protection from scandal and it's career destroying repercussions.

Guache wrote:

You don't have to justify your belief to me or defend it because I don't care.

Thank you, I feel so relieved.

Gauche wrote:

....If you think you've cracked the case then I'm not the one you should be arguing with anyway because admittedly I'm not an expert. Take it to an anthropology forum. My question is why is it that what you're trying to explain to me right now didn't sway the majority of scientists in the world?

Because there still exist a diversity of opinion among trained academics regarding a multitude of scientific topics.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

I did answer your question and now you're asking me a different question and I'll answer that too. You're asking me if people who are genetically East Asian will have morphological features, observable characteristics similar to people in Sub Saharan Africa and they do they're called Papuans and Aboriginal Australians, the latter also sometimes have blonde hair.

The Papuans are originally from Africa. Yet because of their habit of migrating and interbreeding with other "races" today they represent a blending of many genotypes. They could be described as a human "mongrel".

Who isn't originally from Africa?

Look at this from my perspective. You reject a mainstream scientific view and in defense of this not only do you compare scientific consensus to majority opinion - about religion no less - which I completely let go, but you say no one agrees with you because they fear being labeled racist. I've seen the figurative tip of this iceberg and I don't want to see the larger hidden part of it.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

Funny, you accused me of cherry picking and then you do exactly the same thing. It is you who are unbelievably selective in your examples. You cite the Papauns whose genetic pedigree is simply a grab bag of different phenotypes while ignoring examples where such genetic dilution doesn't exist. Will a breeding pair of Papauns ever produce a Nordic child ? Will a breeding pair of Nordics ever produce a Papaun ? Just because Ligers exist doesn't mean that Lions and Tigers don't exist as separate and distinct genotypes. By constantly referring to the human equivalent of a Liger you attempt to bypass the existence of these seperate and genetically distinct examples of which my argument was based upon.

Yes, who isn't originally from Africa ? Tell me, at what point did the human adaptation process stop ? We began in in Africa and then a gradual process of evolutionary diversification began. There is a reason why all humans don't look alike, regardless of where we started from. I'm comparing modern man, in all his diversity, as he exists today.

Gauche wrote:

Look at this from my perspective. You reject a mainstream scientific view and in defense of this not only do you compare scientific consensus to majority opinion - about religion no less - which I completely let go,

....please, don't patronize me.

Gauche wrote:

...but you say no one agrees with you because they fear being labeled racist. I've seen the figurative tip of this iceberg and I don't want to see the larger hidden part of it.

No, please offer your insights, I fully anticipate where this is leading.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

Your argument about why races exist doesn't really interest me. You haven't even cited anything. No offense but I don't want to read someone going on in a dilettante manner about lots of technical things that I have to look up. If you want to put up a link I'll read it but I doubt there's anything coming that will overturn mainstream science . I was only interested in why it is you think your view is overwhelmingly rejected and why you think you should still believe it anyway and you told me. If you don't like the answers I'm giving you I'll tell you now I'm a computer programmer not a biologist. My answers aren't going to get any better.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft

Neither of your comments are politically incorrect. At least, not by my definition. Politically incorrect is when you say something hurtful in a thoughtless or cruel manner. Saying you are taller than some people is not thoughtless or cruel, it just is. Saying you pay attention to someone's skin color is not thoughtless or cruel.

Race - there is no such thing. Sorry, everyone, it is a sociological phenomenon. In Brazil, people don't talk about race, they talk about typos. And people in the same family can be of different typos - blonde, brunette, curly or straight hair, etc. It has nothing to do with your parents in Brazil, only your outward coloring and hair type.

Genetically, there is more variability within a group of people commonly assigned to a "race" than there is between groups of people. For an interesting video on a bunch of kids looking at their DNA and finding out who is more closely related to whom in the group, see:

Which is "true"? I'd go with race is not biological - just because there are black people who can't dance, win races or sing. And there are white, brown, black and in-betweens who can and do all of those things.

And I wish to tell you of something I learned this term in the Critical Thinking class. It is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. You give a number of people a test - it can be simple or complex - and you grade their answers. Then, you ask those people how they think they scored.

Those who know the least - who scored the lowest - score themselves almost as high or higher than the highest scoring people. Those who know the most - score themselves lower than they actually scored.

What? Really? Yes. The people who know the least believe they know the most. The people who know the most - know they don't know all that much. Fact -

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

If the shoe fits, don't stick it in your mouth.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

What? Really? Yes. The people who know the least believe they know the most. The people who know the most - know they don't know all that much. Fact -

I don't believe that either Gauche or myself have claimed to possess and level of knowledge that would place us among those who are scientifically qualified to debate the finer points of genetics and taxonomy. We simply have different views.

How many atheists here discuss religion, theology, philosophy on this forum yet possesses no academic training in those fields ? How many of us discuss various other topics on this forum of which we are only laymen at best ? I guess I should refrain from discussing the weather because I don't possess any formal training in that field, either.

Be that as it may I am going to try and find a page that I bookmarked that contained an article by a Jewish pathologist whose pov was that retaining the classification of "race" ( not to be confused with "species" ) was absolutely vital in the study and treatment of diseases within various human populations.

( edit: I have lost the reference when I replaced my old computer but I do believe I cited this doctor, from Stanford University I believe, in one of our previous threads where we were discussing this very topic. I will try and use RRS google feature later and see if I can pull up the old thread. )

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

re: the OP, there is a sport which white people dominate completely. Hockey.

I'll add what came to the top of my head. Koreans are sick gamers.

I think it tends to be cultural as much as biological, however. It's certainly true that you'd be more likely to be good at something just by being of a certain ethnicity (it has been demonstrated that different ethnicities are generally more prone to certain negative medical conditions than others, and certain benefits as well).
And yet, when you look at culture things are clearly a bit more complicated. A black guy could be the next Gretzky. Or a white guy could be the next top gamer. Or a oriental guy could be the next football star.
Are Koreans generally the best gamers because they're ethnically Korean; or is it because their culture values gaming above all other entertainment, and there are therefore a thousand times as many Korean gamers as there are gamers from any other ethnicity, and the Koreans want it more?

white man, I wonder? There must be some insulting stereotype white middle class males can feel aggrieved about. I've just been making do with guilt for 30 years and I'd love to feel indignant for a change.

Watching Mad Men hasn't made me feel any better. White people get a real thrashing on that show. Given I grew up in that era I find it impossible to believe things were so exaggeratedly negative.

Hahaha.. Have to play devils advocate.. lets see.. this is a tough one.. Don't call the white man a greedy capitalist, he may take offense and lay siege to your home!

I don't allocate much time for TV but I've heard some interesting things about this show. Do you recommend it for a good watch?

Guache and PDW, you guys are debating a tough one.

I'm definitely not the resident geneticist, but I do know specifically that certain traits such as blue eyes are likely the result of an environmentally induced DNA mutation at some point in the past (might want to jot this down for your evolution debates as a positive mutation ). This means that technically these mutations could have occurred relatively spontaneously in multiple regions and then passed down through inheritance and widely distributed through preferred selection. The same applies to other phenotypes.

Of course, for me it's like wading into deep water without knowing how to swim. Gauche is quite correct that ( to my knowledge ) the majority of geneticists are in agreement with his view. At this point I retain some skepticism but I believe I will have to make an attempt at comprehending this issue from a more scientific angle which is no easy task. I'm not a scientist.

I have some homework to do regarding both viewpoints.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

Of course, for me it's like wading into deep water without knowing how to swim. Gauche is quite correct that ( to my knowledge ) the majority of geneticists are in agreement with his view. At this point I retain some skepticism but I believe I will have to make an attempt at comprehending this issue from a more scientific angle which is no easy task. I'm not a scientist.

I have some homework to do regarding both viewpoints.

I like your post.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.